this is also my first post and just as the other gentleman i ask you to
excuse this if it is not quite up to the discussion groups statement
ideologies.
well here it goes ...
i was thinking what if we change the word ''morality'' to ''necessity''
now please do remember that Q according to persig is the beginning, the
buddha. now if Q is the beginning why are we slicing it to be made up of two
parts? oh wait hold up that is completely off track to what i was trying to
get at.
back to necessity, well then change the word morality to necessity
my reasoning behind this is if we look at quality as being the id the one
the beginning but with the two parts of dynamic and static then we also find
that dynamic if not more moral is definitely more necessary.
life cannot occur without change ''dynamics are involved in every aspect
in life rather life is dynamic. life stems from Q and as some see it, it is
Q's highest form. so if life is equal to the dynamic and life begins with
quality,(and may be qualities highest form ) then it would be more than
apparent that dynamic quality (life) is definitely more necessary than the
static quality (the way we live)
if there has been an emotive statement made at all it is most definitely
that there is a question of what is more ''moral'' or necessary.
the quality that is life cannot occur without change the static or routines
by which we live only lesson the quality by which we live they are traps if
you will therefore can be viewed as not only inconsequential, but
unnecessary.
hey i know this is off the wall and is probably an emotive statement in
itself so please do tear this apart if need be no better way to learn than
to be shown your faults
thank you for your patience with me
chris
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST